Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Dang ... DAL stock is now down 9% and continuing.
Nope. Rather a million folks catching the funk I caught last fall ... Capacity Reduction Funk. My hedge fund buddy sent me a text at 12:21 as DAL trading caught the attention of his software.
His other point was that by buying oil refineries and more new RJ's to adjust the mix at DCI Delta was not investing in its core business. That again, was the observation driving my funk last fall.
His other point was that by buying oil refineries and more new RJ's to adjust the mix at DCI Delta was not investing in its core business. That again, was the observation driving my funk last fall.
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Position: 2000 light years from home
Posts: 49
More large RJs = NO 717s
Southwest announced that they're pushing back 737-800 deliveries today. I think it's because they're keeping the 717s. We won't need them anyway if we pass this TA.
Since Ed admitted this TA was about RJs today, I'll repost this:
Since Ed admitted this TA was about RJs today, I'll repost this:
I doubt we would see the 717 if we allow more large RJs. The company is going to retire about 200 50-seaters. Some of the contracts out there allow the 50-seaters to trickle out; others just end cold turkey.
200 50-seaters out = 10,000 seats. That's a big hole network has to fill. They need to make a decision and they need to make it very soon. I believe this is why we are in expedited negotiations. The question the company needs answered is, "Who's going to fly this lift?"
88 717s = 10,300 seats (what a coincidence). This would be just about capacity neutral. If we do NOTHING to our RJ scope, nearly all of the capacity lost due to 50-seater retirements would have to be replaced here at MAINLINE.
You're right, the hard cap on large RJs is 255. the ALPA people I've been talking to (MEC & local) are MISLEADING people by saying the company can just simply add more 76 seat RJs once we get to 768 mainline A/C. They are really not "adding" anything, they have to REMOVE a 70 seat get for every 76 seat jet they add. For some reason they casually forget to mention that.
What if we let the company have more large RJs in this contract? I've heard that 2:1 is what they are leaning toward. Would this reduce RJ block hours? Yes, but we sell seats, not pilot block hours here at Delta.
Sure the company would lose 10,000 seats worth of 50-seaters, but they would gain 7600 of them back with more large RJs. I highly doubt they would get the 717 under these circumstances. I would expect to here them announce that the price just wasn't right but they were able to get some great rates on a handful of A319s. all it would take is about 20 A319s to get back to capacity neutral in this case resulting in fewer mainline jobs.
The only way we'll get a TA out in the near term is if it allows more large RJs, lots and lots of them. Our current RJ scope is the only thing standing in the way.
200 50-seaters out = 10,000 seats. That's a big hole network has to fill. They need to make a decision and they need to make it very soon. I believe this is why we are in expedited negotiations. The question the company needs answered is, "Who's going to fly this lift?"
88 717s = 10,300 seats (what a coincidence). This would be just about capacity neutral. If we do NOTHING to our RJ scope, nearly all of the capacity lost due to 50-seater retirements would have to be replaced here at MAINLINE.
You're right, the hard cap on large RJs is 255. the ALPA people I've been talking to (MEC & local) are MISLEADING people by saying the company can just simply add more 76 seat RJs once we get to 768 mainline A/C. They are really not "adding" anything, they have to REMOVE a 70 seat get for every 76 seat jet they add. For some reason they casually forget to mention that.
What if we let the company have more large RJs in this contract? I've heard that 2:1 is what they are leaning toward. Would this reduce RJ block hours? Yes, but we sell seats, not pilot block hours here at Delta.
Sure the company would lose 10,000 seats worth of 50-seaters, but they would gain 7600 of them back with more large RJs. I highly doubt they would get the 717 under these circumstances. I would expect to here them announce that the price just wasn't right but they were able to get some great rates on a handful of A319s. all it would take is about 20 A319s to get back to capacity neutral in this case resulting in fewer mainline jobs.
The only way we'll get a TA out in the near term is if it allows more large RJs, lots and lots of them. Our current RJ scope is the only thing standing in the way.
Commenting on your own post? really????
Sorry, but I believe (it is my opinion) that WS folks who do not see the reason behind DAL's acquisition of the refinery are clueless. It is ABSOLUTELY part of the core business. It is NOT a profit center. Fuel is $12 billion/year (or something like that). Any significant reduction in that cost is directly transferred to the bottom line. Hedge fund managers and WS types look for the quick kill, and therefore have a certain myopic view. A $300 million reduction (2.5%) in the number one cost to a company in an industry that has thin operating margins like the airline industry is damn smart business. Besides, we are not running the refining operation... geeeez
Does DAL management know something that the oil refining experts don't?
That is the $250 million question.
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: B737 CA
Posts: 1,518
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Position: 2000 light years from home
Posts: 49
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2012
Position: M88A
Posts: 17
They have 7 days. There are many "subject matter experts" coming and going and a whole ton of un-used MCF money to blow on booze and hookers (just kidding about the last part). While the MEC can short cut the 7 days, there is an unbelievable amount of work to do. Taking the full seven days is what I expect.
The men on the Negotiating Committee are really good guys and respectful of the process, as is Tim O'Malley. If (and I think we can assume the affirmative) every thing has gone correctly, the passage of the TA by the MEC is ministerial. However a lot of important education is going on so these folks can teach us the intricacies of the contract offer over the next few weeks.
Expert ALPA to be in full sales mode though. With most TA's comes the union's consent to push for membership ratification. Occasionally a MEC will send out a TA without a recommendation. But, that would be unique given the situation with this one.
The men on the Negotiating Committee are really good guys and respectful of the process, as is Tim O'Malley. If (and I think we can assume the affirmative) every thing has gone correctly, the passage of the TA by the MEC is ministerial. However a lot of important education is going on so these folks can teach us the intricacies of the contract offer over the next few weeks.
Expert ALPA to be in full sales mode though. With most TA's comes the union's consent to push for membership ratification. Occasionally a MEC will send out a TA without a recommendation. But, that would be unique given the situation with this one.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post